sign in sign up
<<
Home , Archdeacon of Leicester, Archdeacon of Ludlow, Assistant Bishop, Bishop of Berwick, Bishop of Leicester, Bishop of Loughborough

GS 2052

GENERAL SYNOD CREATION OF SUFFRAGAN SEE FOR THE DIOCESE OF

1. Under Section 18 (1) of the Dioceses, Pastoral and Mission Measure 2007, the creation of a new suffragan see requires the approval of the General Synod (as well as that of the relevant diocesan synod). This provision therefore applies to the current proposal to create the See of Loughborough in the .

2. Section 7 of the above Measure requires a copy of the diocesan ’s proposal, and the Dioceses Commission’s report thereon, to be circulated to members of the General Synod. These are accordingly attached.

3. The will move the following motion, under item 10 of the agenda:

‘That this Synod approve the proposal to petition Her Majesty in Council to direct under the Suffragan Nominations Act 1888 that the town of Loughborough be taken and accepted for a see of a as if it had been included in the Suffragan Act 1534.’

Church House, (signed) London SW1P 3AZ Dr Jacqui Philips 9 January 2017 Clerk to the Synod

Suffragan Bishop in the Diocese of Leicester

Background The Diocese of Leicester was created in 1926. It was formerly part of the Diocese of Peterborough. The diocese has never had a Suffragan See but since 1987 there have been a series of Stipendiary Assistant Bishops, three of whom were consecrated elsewhere in the Anglican Communion and one was translated from Aston. The current Stipendiary will retire in May 2017.

During the recent vacancy in the See of Leicester, a diocesan working group was established to examine options for episcopal ministry in the future. The working group, led by the Chair of the House of Clergy, quickly established that the diocese was unlikely to be able to appoint another Stipendiary Assistant Bishop and therefore we needed to explore other options. This paper outlines those options which have now been discussed by the Bishop’s Council and Diocesan Synod, and explored with the Dioceses Commission and the . All those consulted have expressed a preference for the first option outlined below.

It has been confirmed that the block grant which the Diocesan Bishop receives from the Church Commissioners will remain unchanged and can be used for episcopal working costs as the Bishop sees fit. Therefore, all the options explored in this paper are within current budgets and involve no significant additional expenditure by either the national church or the diocese.

The Diocese The boundary of the Diocese of Leicester is almost coterminous with the county of which has a total population of just over one million people. There are nine local authorities in the diocese and the county is diverse, including urban, ex‐mining towns and deep rural. There are areas of significant poverty as well as some areas of considerable wealth.

Leicester city is known for its diversity. It is one of the most ethnically and culturally diverse places in the UK. The 2011 census revealed that 19% of the population are Muslim; 15% Hindu; 4% Sikh. Leicester is proud of this diversity although new international conflicts and on‐going terrorism and extremism pose new challenges. The city is also proud that it is now known around the world for football and for King Richard III.

The Diocese is divided into two archdeaconries, broadly covering the west and east of the county. 236 parishes are served by 120 stipendiary clergy, 80 self‐supporting clergy, and 171 Readers. In addition, 75 licensed pioneers are developing fresh expressions of churches. There are also 97 schools and academies.

The Diocesan Bishop was translated from Tewkesbury and took up the role in May 2016.

1 Options There are essentially four possible routes the diocese could now explore:

Option 1: Suffragan The creation of a new see and the appointment of a suffragan bishop is our preferred option and is supported by the Dioceses Commission. In effect, it corrects an anomaly which has existed at least since 1987 when the first Stipendiary Assistant Bishop was appointed.

The town of Loughborough is the obvious choice for the new see (indeed no other serious alternative has emerged during all the consultations). Loughborough is the largest centre of population in Leicestershire outside of the city of Leicester. It has a population of over 57,000 and is the seat of Charnwood Borough Council and home to Loughborough University (which has over 15,000 students and has a world‐wide reputation for sports related research and engineering). It is not far from Leicester city in its statistics for diversity.

The town centre church is All Saints (often known as Loughborough Parish Church) which describes itself as “an inclusive worshipping community”. The building dates from the 14th century and is among the largest parish churches in the county. There is also an evangelical church near the town centre: Emmanuel Loughborough which has been one of the largest church communities in the diocese for some time. There are strong ecumenical links in the town.

A Suffragan Bishop of Loughborough would work across the whole diocese (the geography of the diocese would not easily allow for an area scheme) and the role would focus on three key areas of mission and ministry which are central to the diocesan strategy in coming years:  Sharing faith with confidence and generosity  Building relationships with other faith communities  Enabling greater representation and engagement of BAME Christians

These priorities emerged from the recent consultations for the appointment of the Diocesan Bishop and it would be hoped that the Suffragan Bishop would have particular skills and experience in these areas to complement those of the Diocesan Bishop. These are clearly national priorities as well as local, and are part of the diocesan vision of Leicester as a centre of excellence contributing to learning in the wider church. The attached draft role description expands on these priorities.

This option has strong support from the Bishop’s Staff Team, the Bishop’s Council and the Diocesan Synod (which, on 26 November 2016, voted by 76 to nil with 2 abstentions in favour of the proposal). It is worth noting that a previous attempt to create a Suffragan See (1986) was rejected by the Dioceses Commission, in part because of a letter from the of Leicester who felt that his own role would be significantly diminished by such an appointment. The Bishop’s Staff Team have therefore spent considerable time exploring how their roles would be affected by this appointment and they have all expressed an openness and indeed an enthusiasm for the changes.

2 It is perhaps also worth stating as part of the general background that there are currently no retired bishops living in the diocese. In addition, there are fifteen dioceses in the Church of England which have a smaller population than the Diocese of Leicester and have at least two full‐time bishops. The figures are similar when dioceses are compared by area, number of churches, and clergy.

Option 2 Suffragan Bishop of Northampton shared between the Diocese of Peterborough and the Diocese of Leicester An alternative to creating a new see in the Diocese of Leicester would be to share a Suffragan Bishop with an adjacent diocese e.g. Peterborough with whom we have historic ties. This could either be done with the existing See of Brixworth or there is a dormant See of Northampton in the Diocese of Peterborough which could be revived. An appointment to Brixworth / Northampton could be accompanied by a licence as Assistant Bishop in the Diocese of Leicester and an agreement that the bishop would spend half their time in Leicester, with half their stipend paid from the Bishop of Leicester’s block grant.

While this option would have some advantages associated with partnership working, there would undoubtedly be practical questions related to attendance at two Staff meetings / Councils / Synods, and in relation to time spent travelling. Working across two diocesan cultures would present an even more significant challenge and the view of the Leicester Bishop’s Staff Team is that such a role would not be very easy to navigate or indeed be very fulfilling for the incumbent (potentially feeling rootless and at home in neither diocese). This option has not therefore been explored with any other diocese.

Option 3 The combination of a Suffragan Bishop role with an Archdeacon role This is sometimes referred to as the ‘ option’ as the is also in the . So we could, for example, have a Bishop of Loughborough who is also Archdeacon of Loughborough. However, given that this option still requires us to create a new see (with agreement from General Synod and Royal assent), it is hard to see its advantages over option 1. There would also be practical and ecclesiological questions to be answered in exploring this option.

Option 4 The creation of a third Archdeaconry (no Suffragan Bishop) The grant received from the Church Commissioners could be used for an additional Archdeacon (with no Suffragan Bishop). There are several dioceses who have recently increased the number of their . However, within a diocese the size of Leicester, three archdeaconries would all be very small (approximately 40 benefices in each). And this option also leaves open the question of how we carry forward the priorities outlined above (sharing faith with confidence and generosity; building relationships with other faith communities; enabling greater engagement of BAME Christians). They could be combined with archdeacon roles but in the context of Leicester with multiple cultures and multiple faith communities, there is a clear rationale for saying they are best carried by a bishop who has a clearly understood public and representative ministry outside the church. In addition, with no retired bishops in the diocese, the Diocesan would carry the full weight of confirmations, , licensing services etc.

3 Role Description

Suffragan Bishop of Loughborough

Context

The vision, purpose and strategy of the Diocese of Leicester have been summarised as: Shaped by God in our lives and our communities, we seek the growth of His kingdom in:  the depth of discipleship  the number of disciples of Jesus  loving service of the world.

This vision and strategy has been in place since 2005 and a rigorous focus on the three dimensions of discipleship continues to guide diocesan decision making. In 2010 this led to an ambitious calling to establish as many maturing fresh expressions of church as inherited churches by 2030. The diocese now has some 90 fresh expressions of church and overall, average weekly attendance across the diocese has risen by 1% in the last five years.

From 2017 to 2022, the diocese will focus this strategy on two key groups of people and in two key areas: children and younger people; BAME people; areas of high multiple deprivation and rural areas.

Purpose

In line with this vision and strategy, the Bishop’s Staff Team and Bishop’s Council have identified three key areas of mission and ministry which would be central to the role of Suffragan Bishop:

 enabling greater representation and engagement of BAME Christians Despite Leicester’s demographics, BAME Christians are significantly underrepresented in Anglican churches and diocesan leadership. The Suffragan Bishop will lead on cultural change in the diocese, ecumenical working with black and Asian majority churches, and cross cultural evangelism.

 sharing faith with confidence and generosity Despite the encouraging growth in average weekly attendance, there is a still a lack of confidence among many Christians in sharing their faith with friends, family and colleagues. The Suffragan Bishop will lead on growing a culture of confidence and generosity, setting an example in their own public ministry and mentoring and coaching others.

 building relationships with other faith communities Leicester takes pride in the good relationships between faith communities. But these relationships are fragile and often only involve ‘enthusiasts’. The Suffragan Bishop will lead on widening and deepening these relationships, focusing on partnership working for the common good.

4 The role

“Bishops are ordained to be shepherds of Christ’s flock and guardians of the faith of the Apostles, proclaiming the Gospel of God’s Kingdom and leading his people in mission. Obedient to the call of Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit, they are to gather God’s people and celebrate with them the sacraments of the new covenant. Thus formed into a single communion of faith and love, the Church in each place and time is united with the Church in every place and time” (from the Ordinal, Common Worship, 2005).

In particular, the Bishop of Loughborough  will act as an episcopal colleague to the Diocesan Bishop, sharing with the whole of the Bishop’s Staff Team, with the Area Deans and Lay Chairs and with the Bishop’s Council in the strategic leadership and management of the Diocese  will set an example in sharing faith with confidence and generosity, enabling others to discover a living relationship with God through Jesus Christ  will lead initiatives to enable all Christians to share their faith with confidence and generosity and live out their discipleship in multiple contexts and networks  will share with the Diocesan Bishop initiatives to maintain and enhance community cohesion by drawing together members of other faith communities and working together for the common good  will lead the diocese in work which enables greater representation and engagement of black, Asian and minority ethnic and multi‐national Christians within the life of the diocese  will exercise oversight in relation to our diocesan overseas partnerships and may have special responsibility for one or more of them.

The areas that will be specifically delegated to the Bishop of Loughborough are:  Bishop’s nominee (potentially Chair) of the St Philip’s Centre, strengthening its work in equipping people of different faiths to live well together; enabling encounter, understanding, trust and cooperation.  Sponsoring Bishop for Ordinands and Chair of the Diocesan Vocations Team (growing vocations to ministry particularly among young people and BAME Christians)  Chair (or Vice‐chair) of Diocesan Forum for Ethnic Minority Anglicans  The Bishop of Loughborough will have a significant role in sharing in the pastoral care of the clergy and their families, retired clergy, Readers and Pioneers  The Bishop of Loughborough will work out of an office at St Martin’s House, Leicester where both Archdeacons are based, in a collaborative ministry together. S/he will share administrative support with the Chief Exec / Diocesan Secretary.  The Bishop of Loughborough will be a member of the College of Canons of the Cathedral

5  At a time of transition in the life of the Diocese, the Bishop of Loughborough will need to live comfortably with change and be able to give confidence to others.  To discharge all other duties as set out in law.

Possible Time Line for Appointment

Stage 1 – Creation of See (DPMM 2007 Section 18)

Bishop consults Archbishop about creation of new See June 2016

Bishop asks Dioceses Commission to consider proposal September 2016

Response of Dioceses Commission October 2016

Bishop seeks Diocesan Synod approval for creation of see November 2016

Approval by General Synod of Creation of new See February 2017

Petition to create the See sent to HM the Queen February 2017

Stage 2 – Appointment of Suffragan (DPMM 2007 Section 17)

Advisory Group Formed March 2017

Bishops Council endorse role specification March 2017

Post advertised April 2017

Interviews May 2017

Archbishop Approves Appointment June 2017

CRB/Medical August 2017

Announcement September 2017

Consecration December 2017

Suffragan takes up appointment January 2018

+ Martyn Leicester February 2017

6

DIOCESES COMMISSION OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

LEICESTER SUFFRAGAN SEE: STATEMENT ON THE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSAL ON THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

1. On receiving a proposal to create a suffragan see from the relevant diocesan bishop, the Dioceses Commission is required, under s.18(3) of the Dioceses, Pastoral and Mission Measure 2007, to ‘…prepare a statement on the effect of the proposal on the mission of the Church of England.’ It is also required to prepare a financial estimate of effect of the proposal: this is attached as ANNEX 1.

2. Following the retirement of the Rt Revd as Assistant Bishop of Newcastle and the appointment of the Revd Canon as the suffragan , the Rt Revd Christopher Boyle – the Assistant Bishop of Leicester - is the only remaining full time stipendiary assistant bishop in the Church of England. Bishop Boyle is due retire in May 2017 and the diocese wishes to appoint a suffragan bishop in his stead for the reasons set out by the Bishop of Leicester in his separate submission.

3. The background to this proposal is that the diocese had earlier sought permission to create a suffragan see in 1986, but its application was turned down by the then Commission. At the time the proposal was not supported by the two archdeacons in the diocese; neither was the Commission convinced that the proposed role description was such that it justified the appointment of a suffragan. The Commission instead suggested that some non-episcopal sector ministry resource might meet the needs as set out, coupled with some additional episcopal help from an assistant bishop.

4. Subsequent Bishops of Leicester have negotiated separate arrangements with the Church Commissioners for funding stipendiary assistant bishops. But in each case it was necessary to find someone who was already in episcopal orders as it is not possible to consecrate to serve in this capacity as they can only be consecrated to a properly constituted diocesan or suffragan see. A series of ad hoc arrangements were accordingly made to enable funding for the successive appointments of Bishops (1987-95); Bill Down (1995-2001); John Austin (2005-7); and Christopher Boyle (2009 onwards).

5. The Commissioners moved to a system of diocesan block grants for episcopal oversight from 1 January 2011 decoupling their level of support from particular episcopal posts. This meant that thereafter there was no requirement for the Bishops of Leicester to negotiate separately with the Commissioners about the stipendiary assistant bishop posts in his diocese, provided the block grant was sufficient to cover the costs. (Dioceses are responsible for their housing). While the flexibility of these block grant arrangements has been generally welcome, a perhaps unintended consequence has been that it has, theoretically at any rate, made it made it easier to perpetuate an essentially ad hoc arrangement.

1

6. The fact that the diocese has found it necessary to make a succession of ad hoc arrangements for stipendiary assistant bishops for nearly 30 years suggests that there is a long term requirement for episcopal oversight to be provided by more than one bishop. It might be thought that Bishop Boyle should be replaced by another stipendiary assistant bishop, but the Commission has decided against this on three main grounds:

(1) As indicated in para 5 above, only someone already in episcopal orders can be appointed to such a role. Not only is the supply of English bishops returning from episcopal service in other parts of the Anglican Communion – the main route in the past - drying up, but it is highly unlikely that someone with the right skill sets for the role would be available from such a restricted source. It is therefore hard to see how the mission needs of the diocese could be met by this route. (2) The legal context has been affected by the advent of women bishops. In the view of the Legal Office, the basis on which a stipendiary assistant bishop is appointed is a contractual one, so that such a bishop is an employee for the purposes of Part 5 of the Equality Act. It follows that a diocese with a female stipendiary assistant bishop, who would be expected in accordance with the arrangements made under the House of Bishops’ Declaration to refrain from carrying out certain aspects of ministry in parishes which had passed a resolution under the Declaration, would be at risk of a claim for unlawful sex discrimination. A potentially serious legal situation could therefore arise if a woman were to serve as a stipendiary assistant bishop. (3) The Legal Office has also advised that “stipendiary assistant bishop” is not an ecclesiastical office and that such a bishop does not hold it under Common Tenure. As a result, neither the provisions concerning security of tenure, provision of housing etc., nor those which concern matters such as capability and continuing ministerial development apply to a stipendiary assistant bishop. Stipendiary assistant bishops are therefore anomalous in this regard too.

7. The Commission has therefore come to the view, following discussion with the Bishop of Leicester and other members of the diocesan senior staff, that it would make practical sense to seek to look at the case for long term provision for episcopal oversight in the diocese on a similar basis to the pattern of episcopal oversight in all but two Church of England dioceses1, by assessing whether it would meet its normal criteria for filling a suffragan see (which, in this instance, necessitates creating a See2). The Commission would normally consider

 the mission case for the role;  the job weight;  the inherently episcopal nature of the intended role;  diocesan views on the proposal (via the bishop’s council / diocesan synod); and  some standard statistics about the diocese relative to others.

1 Apart from Leicester, only the dioceses of Portsmouth and Sodor & Man do not have at least one suffragan see. 2 Unlike the situation in the , there are no unfilled suffragan sees available within the Leicester diocese.

2

8. The Commission has carefully noted the mission case for the post as set out by the Bishop of Leicester. It found it clear and persuasive and particularly noted the distinctive ethnic and cultural diversity of Leicester itself – which was significant nationally - and the corresponding mission challenges that flowed from this for ministry to BAME Christians and relations with other faith communities. It could see that there was indeed a strong case for strengthening episcopal capacity in the diocese as proposed.

9. Unlike the position in 1986 the proposal has strong support from within the senior staff team. It is also backed by the Bishop’s Council. This support was also very evident from the Diocesan Synod debate on 26 November 2016 to which I was invited to contribute. The Synod voted by 76-0 (with 2 abstentions) in favour of the proposal. The Church Commissioners’ Bishoprics and Cathedrals Committee and Board of Governors have also been consulted and have raised no objection to what it is proposed.

10. Looking at diocesan statistical data, Leicester is a middle to lower ranking diocese by most yardsticks: 24th on terms of population; 27th in respect of the number of parishes; 28th for geographical area; 30th for Electoral Roll; 32nd for Usual Sunday Attendance; and 36th for the total number of clergy. Assuming it had a complement of 2 full-time bishops, there would be 1 bishop per 80 clergy- 35th in the national ranking: very similar to dioceses such as Leeds and Winchester (both 1:81). The Commission has approved the filling of suffragan sees in dioceses with lower rankings than these and it would be consistent with the approach it has adopted hitherto to take the view that this suffragan see should be filled.

11. The Commission supports the mission case from the Diocese of Leicester to create a Suffragan See of Loughborough. It also believes that it would be consistent with its assessment of the mission needs of dioceses in the Church of England more generally for approval to be given to the creation of this see and commends the proposal to the General Synod.

Church House, (signed) London SW1P 3AZ MICHAEL CLARKE 9 January 2017 Chair

3

ANNEX 1 FINANCIAL ESTIMATE FOR THE PROPOSED CREATION OF A NEW SUFFRAGAN BISHOPRIC IN THE DIOCESE OF LEICESTER

A. Background

1. On receiving a proposal for the creation of a new suffragan see, the Dioceses Commission is required under section 18(3) of the Dioceses, Mission and Pastoral Measure 2007 “to prepare a statement of the effect of the proposal . . . . in consultation with the Commissioners an estimate of the financial effect of the proposal and shall include the statement and estimate in its report.”.

2. The intention of the emerging preferred option is to replace the current provision for a full-time stipendiary assistant bishop in Leicester Diocese with a new suffragan post of the Bishop of Loughborough. This note sets out the background for an estimate of the financial effect of this proposal and has been reviewed by staff in the Church Commissioners’ Bishoprics and Cathedrals Department.

B. Grants from the national Church to support bishops’ ministry 3. Since 2011 the Church Commissioners have made a block grant to each diocesan bishop to fund the stipend and associated costs and the office and working costs for all the bishops in the diocese. In subsequent years the grants for episcopal ministry in each diocese have increased by the grants growth factor used by the Commissioners for their grants for mission and ministry in parishes and cathedrals as well as by bishops. 4. In practice all dioceses have made a saving in their bishops’ ministry block grants over the period 2011-2015. Inevitably there have been peaks and troughs in expenditure, with some cases where expenditure above the grant level has been incurred in an individual year which has either been funded from the accumulated underspend from earlier years or possibly other sources (most likely the diocese or bishop’s discretionary fund). 5. A change in the number of bishops in a diocese does not impact the episcopal ministry grants. Discussions with the Church Commissioners have confirmed that if the proposal to create a new suffragan see of Loughborough proceeds, it would have no automatic impact on the block grant for bishops’ ministry in Leicester diocese.

6. The Archbishops’ Spending Plans Task Group has recommended that during 2017-2019 the allocation of block grants for bishops’ ministry between all dioceses be reviewed, to take into account relative resources and population, with a view to agreeing and introducing any changes by 2020. This recommendation was accepted by the Archbishops’ Council and Church Commissioners’ Board. The allocation to Leicester diocese will be included in this review.

4

C. Impact of changing from an assistant bishop to a suffragan bishop

7. In 2015 the average cost of a suffragan bishop was £99,000. This figure includes stipend and associated costs (such as pension and employers’ national insurance contributions), expenses and office and working costs (such as the cost of administrative support, travel and entertaining). The equivalent figure for assistant bishops was £63,000. This could be taken as implying that the proposal to move from an assistant bishop to a suffragan bishop might cost an additional £36,000 p.a3. However, the assistant bishop figures are based on the experience of only two individuals, so are not necessarily a good indicator. The distribution of the available funding between the diocesan bishop and his/her suffragan or assistant bishops is a local decision: it does not automatically follow that a suffragan bishop will be allocated more funds than an assistant bishop. 8. In 2015 the grant for episcopal ministry in Leicester diocese was £388,415 and the costs incurred were £343,626. Thus the in-year surplus was just under £45,000 which included just over £20,000 of stipend savings (the see of Leicester was vacant from September 2015). 9. The Leicester Diocesan Board of Finance currently contributes approximately £15,000 (22.5%) per year towards the working costs (including stipend and on costs) of the Assistant Bishop. 10. By the end of 2015 the accumulated underspend for the Leicester bishops’ block grant over the period 2011-2015 was just over £100,000 which represents an average saving of £16,000 per year (excluding stipend savings arising from the vacancy). 11. Although this accumulated surplus will be reduced by the Church Commissioners reclaiming the surpluses in bishops’ ministry accounts per diocese in excess of £50,000 for re-allocation to help support other parts of the Church’s mission, there appears to be some capacity for the existing block grant to support some increased expenditure if it emerges. 12. The nature of the new bishop’s ministry and associated costs and any consequential changes to the nature and costs of the diocesan bishops’ ministry will be a matter for local decision. While the proposed role of the Bishop of Loughborough as proposed will differ significantly from that exercised currently by Bishop Boyle, this is likely to be accompanied by a reshaping of other senior roles in the diocese and the diocese does not envisage that it will result in a net increase in its administrative budget. If these changes do, however, result in increased costs then the first source of funds will be the bishops’ ministry block grant from the Commissioners which will increase by 3.21% p.a. in the 2017-2019 triennium, following a 1.0% increase in 2016. If the costs increase by more than the current rate of underspend of £16,000 plus the inflationary increases then the balance will need to be made up from the remaining accumulated block grant surplus and, if that is exhausted, local funding. 13. The current Assistant Bishop of Leicester lives in his own house so that will not be available for a new suffragan. It is understood that the diocese plan is to allocate an existing vacant diocesan house or to sell a vacant house and purchase a new one which deemed more suitable in terms of accommodation, location, etc. at a broadly neutral

3 Which includes the difference in stipend costs. In the 2017/18 stipend year the stipend of a newly appointed suffragan bishop will be £1,140 more than that for an equivalent assistant bishop.

5

capital cost. The cost to the diocese will therefore effectively be the lost investment income on the value of the house purchased/rent foregone, plus insurance, council tax, maintenance, etc. which would be in the region of a total of £15,000 per year.

D: Summary

14. The key points are:

 The proposal to replace the Assistant Bishop of Leicester with a new suffragan bishop of Loughborough will not trigger any change in the block grant for bishops’ ministry in Leicester diocese from the Church Commissioners.

 In 2011-2015 the block grant for bishops’ ministry in Leicester diocese from the Church Commissioners for underspent by an average of £16,000 p.a. (excluding stipend savings) with an underspend of £25,000 (excluding stipend savings) in the most recent full year (2015).

 The current level of underspend and accumulated surplus of £50,000 (once the Commissioners’ have reclaimed the surplus above this level) provides an additional buffer should the cost of the new arrangements exceed those of the current arrangements as a result of decisions made locally on the nature and associated costs of the new arrangements for episcopal ministry in Leicester diocese.

 It is planned that the allocation of bishops’ ministry block grant funding between all dioceses will be reviewed during 2017-2019 as recommended by the Archbishops’ Spending Plans Task Group.

 There will be a modest increase in housing costs of the region of £15k p.a., but these will be picked up by the diocese.

6